700 gallon Fish Stocking Ideas

[MultipleTankSyndrome]

700g is enough for a tigershovelnose

Maybe enough for a farm-culled runt. But I don't believe it would be enough for a properly sized individual.
Even the 10,368 liter Seriously Fish recommends only gives a bit more than 3 body lengths for the fish (which, as Seriously Fish rightly points out, is not enough space). So a tank almost 4 times smaller clearly isn't enough either.

 

[PhishMon84]

Can you please stop switching the units of measure in every thread. This thread is gallons, leave it as such.

 

[MultipleTankSyndrome]

They're equivalent measurements. And there's no rule that says we can't use our preferred system in threads dealing one way or the other?‍

 

[PhishMon84]

It make the threads unreadable, constantly switching. Helpful answers would only be in the same
Format as the question was submitted.

 

[MultipleTankSyndrome]

I disagree with that. It's very easy to just search for liter/gallon or inch/cm for anyone who doesn't use the metric system.

The question was about stocking anyway, and there's, again, no rule requiring to use the same metrics in which the question was submitted.

 

[PhishMon84]

Correct about stocking a fish you have zero experience/interest with. In a format you don’t prefer, so I guess there was no reason to respond.
Just like switching every topic to loaches- it’s adds nothing to the conversation

 

[MultipleTankSyndrome]

The question's been answered. I may not have experience with a tiger shovelnose, and I concede to a farm bred possibly being ok in the size of pond being proposed, but I did know of material from experts showing that for a properly sized individual the proposed pond would be too small which I felt appropriate to share.

If this is just going to keep up, I'm done with this thread.

 

[celebrist]

All this conversion is wearing me out!

All measurements of length should be in cubits, volume in minas, and weight in talents

Now that we have that settled...

 

[altums85]

Maybe enough for a farm-culled runt. But I don't believe it would be enough for a properly sized individual.
Even the 10,368 liter Seriously Fish recommends only gives a bit more than 3 body lengths for the fish (which, as Seriously Fish rightly points out, is not enough space). So a tank almost 4 times smaller clearly isn't enough either.

Seriously fish also said silver arowana needs public aquarium to keep one. Or a 96x36x36 for a bass. I bet only a small % of fishkeepers on here a have a 500g or bigger. Bottom line is, it's cruel to keep fish in a box. No amount of aquarium can compare to the volume the fish from the lakes and rivers. We can only give them the biggest size tank we can. And the best care we can give them.

 

[MultipleTankSyndrome]

Seriously fish also said silver arowana needs public aquarium to keep one. Or a 96x36x36 for a bass. I bet only a small % of fishkeepers on here a have a 500g or bigger.

And that means there are only a small percent of fish keepers elligible to keep those fish.

Bottom line is, it's cruel to keep fish in a box.

Opinion. Keeping fish in a tank/box/pond/enclosure (whatever you call it) is cruel if the fish is not being cared for properly, and this is often manifested by the fish not behaving as it would in the wild (with stress related behavior).
However, if the fish is behaving approximately as it would in the wild, I don't believe it's cruel at all. That wild-like behavior is a strong indicator of all its needs being met.

No amount of aquarium can compare to the volume the fish from the lakes and rivers.

Of course. But despite that, a number of aquarium fish behave approximately as they would in the wild, suggesting their tank volumes are spacious enough.

We can only give them the biggest size tank we can. And the best care we can give them.

Indeed, and if we can't give them appropriate space or care, we shouldn't have them.
If we can, there's no reason we can't have them.

But, really, enough of this. The thread's being derailed.